In a press conference at CES in Las Vegas, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) stood jointly with Consumer Electronics Association President and CEO Gary Shapiro to voice their opposition to the Stop Online Privacy Act and Protect IP Act. The two legislators—who Issa acknowledged are "not predictable partners"—also participated in a series of panels at CES in an attempt to build support from the technology community in their campaign to adopt an alternative scheme for countering piracy. "There are no amendments that would make these bills acceptable," Issa explained.

The CEA has joined the Computer and Communications Industry Association and others as part of Protect Innovation, a coalition pushing to stop passage of SOPA and PIPA. "The content providers have had a free reign" in pushing forward increasingly draconian copyright protection, Shapiro said. "Now it's going to stop, because they're messing with the Internet."

Issa, who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, will hold hearings starting on January 18th to present what he called "more balanced testimony" about the impact of the two pieces of legislation, and on January 17th will introduce an alternative piece of legislation—called the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, or OPEN. Wyden is sponsoring OPEN in the Senate, organizing opposition to PIPA, and planning a filibuster if necessary when the Senate returns to Washington later in the month.

"Ever since I put a hold on the version of this legislation that was introduced in the last Congress [the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act]," Wyman said, "our side has been fighting above our weight." But he added that "there's tremendous support building on our side."

Wyden, Issa, and Shapiro all agreed with the fundamental idea behind SOPA and PIPA—to stop the flow of money to foreign websites trafficking in pirated videos, music, software and other intellectual property. But OPEN and the other bills take two fundamentally different philosophical approaches to the problem, Wyden said. "The difference between the two approaches is that we do not believe you should go out and do all this damage to the Internet. We have a simple remedy—cut off the money."

Like SOPA and PIPA, OPEN is aimed at cutting off the flow of money to foreign Internet sites trafficking in pirated software, videos, and other copyrighted material. The proposed legislation would make copyright and trademark enforcement an issue for the US International Trade Commission rather than the federal court system.

Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Ron Wyden

Sean Gallagher

Using the best tool for the job

Because of his experience in the consumer electronics industry, "I was familiar with what it did," Issa explained. "If [Rep.] Lamar Smith and [Rep. John] Conyers"—the architects of SOPA in the House Judiciary Committee—"had come up with the idea of a specialty court... if they had reinvented the ITC—I wouldn't have had to do this." Issa described the ITC as a "low-cost, highly reliable, and predictable court where you get judges who know IP," as opposed to federal judges who generally handle fewer of them, and are more likely to have decisions overturned on appeal. "The ITC has been the place you go to [for intellectual property infringement] since Taft's Tariff Act," Issa said.

And the ITC costs less for IP owners, he said, because even if they can't afford an attorney, they can take their own case to the ITC "and get justice without an attorney. Russian oligarchs running websites off former military bases aren't going to contest a copyright—the foreign infringer will almost always default." And the ITC has an inherently better set of relationships internationally to go after infringers overseas, he said. The ITC would also provide a single set of people with expertise in IP, providing continuity in the prosecution of infringement. Under OPEN, Issa contended, the ITC would be able to shut down the flow of money to infringers within 90 days—and with repeat infringements, within days or hours. "We're not claiming the ITC is perfectly prepared" to take on Internet piracy, Issa explained. But he and Wyden believe that the ITC is much more capable of handling the task than the Justice Department and federal courts, considering some of the overreaching that ICE has done in enforcing copyright laws.

Wyden said that OPEN also places a much narrower definition on who the law can be applied to—specifically foreign infringing websites that "primarily and willfully engage in infringement." OPEN wouldn't change the current standards for copyright, and would be an "accompaniment to DMCA" rather than setting it aside. "We're protecting fair use," Wyden said. "We're not dismantling [the] DMCA." SOPA, on the other hand, sets aside much of DMCA and puts a new copyright standard in place that could have far-reaching ramifications.

That sort of big change isn't required, Issa said, because a narrower approach would be enough to immediately go after the biggest sources of piracy. "Twenty sites represent most of the infringement," Issa said. "Were talking about something that could shut off 80 percent of infringement quickly."

While SOPA and PIPA proponents have argued that the ITC would be more expensive than their plans, SOPA "scores as a very expensive bill," Wyden said. Smith and Conyers "have made the assumption that there would be only a few cases" prosecuted under SOPA, while the numbers used to oppose OPEN are based on thousands of cases being filed.

But SOPA's costs are hard to really pin down, Wyden said, "because it's hard to score a lawyers' full employment program." And the economic costs of SOPA would be potentially huge because of the negative effect on small businesses, he said. "The 'Net is the great equalizer for small business, and these people are going to be hurt" by SOPA's changes to the Internet's structure. As we deal with this economy, why would you do all this damage to the job engine?"

Venture capitalists are among the witnesses being called to Issa's hearings next week, to discuss the impact on creativity that SOPA would have. "That creativity will still happen, but not in America," Issa said.

A tin ear

At a minimum, Issa and Wyden are hoping to put the brakes on the momentum to get SOPA and PIPA passed. "The whole strategy has been to get these bills into conference, because then you would have these two bills with the same principles—which is why the first week back in the Senate is so important, to educate senators and get people to communicate with them through email, phone calls, and the like."

When asked if the SOPA drafters had been out of touch with the impact of SOPA, or had a "tin ear" to the issues raised by the tech community, Issa said that was "probably a fair assessment. Lamar and Conyers are not techies." Other than dealing with patent reform, the House Judiciary Committee doesn't have a lot of oversight over technology. And the way that SOPA was drafted, Issa said, it kept all of the measures within the scope of Judiciary's oversight. "How could that be referred to only one committee?" he asked.

Shapiro was sharper in his assessment of Conyers and Smith. "They did it because they could," he said. "It was done from the perspective of the content community alone." Because of the nature of the committee's oversight, media companies have been especially attentive to its members, Shapiro said, and as a result, "Judiciary is very sensitive to the content community." While SOPA came from good intentions, "good intentions do not always make good laws."

Shapiro noted that a good portion of the media industry's revenue—"the honest legitimate delivery of content"—is based on having a stable Internet. He noted that the late president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, who "once said that VCRs were to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler was to women home alone," toward the end of his life became a believer in digital distribution. And SOPA threatens that cash cow.

Wyden's moves to delay a PIPA vote have already had the effect of allowing people to take a look at what is in the bill. Issa said that the national security community has looked at what SOPA and PIPA would do to their plans revolving around DNS-SEC, so they are voicing opposition to them. And the momentum in the Senate to pass PIPA looks to at least be slowing. "We're not underestimating how tough a fight this is," Wyden said. "But we don't find a lot of new co-sponsors going on the bill." Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) was a supporter of PIPA, he said, and has since dropped his support and come over as the principal Republican co-sponsor of OPEN in the Senate. "And a lot of senators are looking for an approach that doesn't do as much damage."

"Time is on our side," Shapiro said, noting that organizations on the left and right—"the Tea Party and MoveOn.org"—have voiced opposition to SOPA and PIPA, and that large business associations such as the Business Software Alliance have pulled their support. And primary opponents of congressmen and senators up for re-election are raising the bills as a major issue, Shapiro said.

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

A filibuster is where a Senator takes advantage of their turn to speak to hold up a vote on legislation until everyone else gives up and delays the measure. Strom Thurmond famously filibustered for just over 24 hours (to try and stop the Civil Rights Act).

Here's hoping that all of the community activism will have an effect on completely axing these bits of legislation. It's a bummer that my state's senators and representatives are backing their respective SOPA/PIPA. I know how I'm NOT voting this November.

Very interesting! Bet the scummies didnt expect this sort of opposition and joining of different camps!

I'm not American but I love this Wyden guy!

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

Thanks!

Instead of the SOPA/PIPA he will make a kinder gentler Law called OPEN but in the end it still will open up the door of Censorship.Yes he amy be better than these scumbag greedy money taking arses but you still need to watch out for his crew.

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

Assuming you mean filibuster in the general sense...

Being the supposedly deliberative body of the US Congress, the Senate rules allow a Senator to discuss any topic they wish for as long as they wish. When a Senator invokes this right merely to stall the vote on the bill, he is filibustering, requiring the members of the Senate to vote to end the debate (cloture), give into his demands, or simply try and wait him out.

The basic idea is to allow a lone Senator (or small group) to block the most egregious bills/appointments that would otherwise pass (such as SOPA here). Cloture requires a supermajority (currently 60 out of the 100 Senators) versus the simple majority required to pass the bill. Often, this means controversial legislation (such as the Health Care bill) require 60 votes instead of a simple majority.

Originally, someone had to actually be actively holding the floor, so Senators would read aloud from phone books or other similarly silly tactics. These days, to avoid wasting everyone's time, when a Senator wishes to start a filibuster, the Senate will just do the cloture vote and then move onto other business if it fails.

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

A filibuster is where a Senator takes advantage of their turn to speak to hold up a vote on legislation until everyone else gives up and delays the measure. Strom Thurmond famously filibustered for just over 24 hours (to try and stop the Civil Rights Act).

Your comment led me to do some more Googling.

While I respect this senator for taking such a stand, it really is a pity that Thurmond did it on this issue which turns my admiration of him into thinking of him as nothing more than a racist prick.

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

A filibuster is where a Senator takes advantage of their turn to speak to hold up a vote on legislation until everyone else gives up and delays the measure. Strom Thurmond famously filibustered for just over 24 hours (to try and stop the Civil Rights Act).

Your comment led me to do some more Googling.

While I respect this senator for taking such a stand, it really is a pity that Thurmond did it on this issue which turns my admiration of him into thinking of him as nothing more than a racist prick.

That's because he WAS a racist prick and an active member of the KKK at one point, I believe... unless I'm thinking of somebody else. I'm pretty sure it was him, though.

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

A filibuster is where a Senator takes advantage of their turn to speak to hold up a vote on legislation until everyone else gives up and delays the measure. Strom Thurmond famously filibustered for just over 24 hours (to try and stop the Civil Rights Act).

Your comment led me to do some more Googling.

While I respect this senator for taking such a stand, it really is a pity that Thurmond did it on this issue which turns my admiration of him into thinking of him as nothing more than a racist prick.

That's because he WAS a racist prick and an active member of the KKK at one point, I believe... unless I'm thinking of somebody else. I'm pretty sure it was him, though.

Not just him. Fmr. Sen. Robert C Byrd (D-WV), was as well. Probably a lot more than them back when the KKK was real big. Just proves that saints don't win elections.

Could this be the same Consumer Electronics Association who filed an amicus briefs in support of Grokster and Napster? The same CEA who opposed the DMCA? The same CEA who supported using camcorders in theatres? Why am I not surprised!?

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

A filibuster is where a Senator takes advantage of their turn to speak to hold up a vote on legislation until everyone else gives up and delays the measure. Strom Thurmond famously filibustered for just over 24 hours (to try and stop the Civil Rights Act).

Your comment led me to do some more Googling.

While I respect this senator for taking such a stand, it really is a pity that Thurmond did it on this issue which turns my admiration of him into thinking of him as nothing more than a racist prick.

That's because he WAS a racist prick and an active member of the KKK at one point, I believe... unless I'm thinking of somebody else. I'm pretty sure it was him, though.

organizations on the left and right—"the Tea Party and MoveOn.org"—have voiced opposition to SOPA and PIPA

It sometimes blows my mind just how varied the opposition to SOPA/PIPA can be. You'd think that if a bill can bring so many different groups together to oppose it, then there must be something wrong with the bill. Imagine that!

For anyone who wants to write to their congressmen, I found a cool site today called OpenCongress.org. Lets you look up who your congressmen are and you can look up the Bills currently being discussed (the SOPA bill is one of the most popular ones right now) and you can send a letter to all of them letting them know if you are For or Against a particular bill by filling out a single form. Especially nice for me since I moved recently and had no idea who my Representative was.

popvox.com is good, too. They've got a new app that shows you how well your votes match those of your congressman. SOPA and PIPA already have huge majorities against them, but the more votes, the better.

Very interesting! Bet the scummies didnt expect this sort of opposition and joining of different camps!

I'm not American but I love this Wyden guy!

Can someone explain this "filibuster" in a easy to understand way please?

Thanks!

"Filibustering" traditionally meant that when "granted the floor" to speak on an issue, an elected representative would continue to speak for as long as he/she could hold out; literally. Since a vote on a proposed bill/law cannot be held until debate has ended, the idea was to continue debate until the speakers opponents gave in.

Today, a filibuster is nothing more than a procedural step that requires little more than a lawmaker saying something like, "I move to continue debate; drinks are on Harry Reid!" & then everybody goes to a fund-raiser.

Here's hoping that all of the community activism will have an effect on completely axing these bits of legislation. It's a bummer that my state's senators and representatives are backing their respective SOPA/PIPA. I know how I'm NOT voting this November.

See, that's the part that gets me. One of the reps for my area is supporting SOPA. Now, this guy is an idiot who only got where he is now because his father was once a very powerful man. However, if I choose not to vote for him now, it might end up that his next opponent is some nut from the anti-science crowd.

This isn't even a "lesser of two evils" thing anymore. It's a "what variety of evil do you prefer?"

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.